Peter Woodhams investigation - MPS report

Report: 6b
Date: 10 July 2008
By: the Commander Directorate of Professional Standards on behalf of the Commissioner

Summary

This paper sets out the background to the murder of Peter Woodhams in August 2006. It details the serious assault on Mr Woodhams in January of that year and the failings in the subsequent investigation.

It explains the discipline process that followed and the outcome of the misconduct hearing before Commander Sawyer and the assistant commissioner’s appeal by AC Ghaffur.

A. Recommendations

That Members note the contents of this report.

B. Supporting information

Background

1. On 21st January 2006 Jane Bowden was driving her fiancé, Peter Woodhams, to their home in Tallis Close, London, E16. They were close to their destination when they heard something hit the car. Mr. Woodhams jumped out to see what had happened. Jane Bowden could see a gang of youths standing on the corner and she saw Mr. Woodhams turn towards the boys and the group run off. Mr. Woodhams ran after them. She next saw Mr. Woodhams after he had been stabbed. Because they were close to Tallis Road and, at that stage it was not thought that the wound was very serious, Mr. Woodhams tried to walk home but collapsed in the road and an ambulance was called.

2. Uniform Response Team Officers attended the scene, rendered first aid and dealt with the initial scene management. One of the uniformed officers accompanied Mr. Woodhams to hospital in the ambulance. Despite the attendance of both supervising uniform and CID officers at the scene, police retrieved no clothing or other items. Mr. Woodhams was discharged from hospital just after midnight on 22nd January 2006.

3. Mr. Woodhams was later to say that it was two of the youths out of the original group who were responsible for his injury. He gave a description of a male who kicked him and a person with a grey top shouting “hold him, hold him, I am going to do him”. The man who had kicked him then hit him in the face. Both men ran off. Mr Woodham believed he would recognise them again.

4. During the first weeks after the stabbing a number of telephone calls were received at Tallis Close and also Jane Bowden’s mother’s home. Five named individuals were mentioned including the two already described above. (An anonymous list containing two names and three street names was handed to police by Peter Woodhams).

5. DC Suett was appointed as investigating officer and on 31st January 2006 he sent a memo to the officer dealing with the Witness Album Delivery System asking for a viewing to be arranged. This resulted in Mr. Woodhams viewing a number of images on 9th February. It did not result in anybody being identified and did not contain the pictures of any of those who had been named in the numerous telephone calls or those later charged with his murder. Detective Sergeant Darren Case was supervising this investigation.

6. Tragically on 21st August 2006 Mr. Woodhams was shot and subsequently died. Two men were subsequently arrested and charged, namely Bradley Tucker and James Taylor.

Subsequent Investigation and Discipline Process

7. At the end of August 2006 the IPCC conducted an independent investigation following complaints from Mr. Woodhams’ fiancée, Jane Bowden, and other members of both her and Mr. Woodhams’ families. The allegations centred upon the failures of the investigation into Mr. Woodhams’ stabbing involving the above named officers.

8. The IPCC investigated the conducted of 9 officers in total and concluded in April 2007. DC Suett had by this time transferred to Derbyshire Constabulary. The IPCC investigation found a number of failures on his part.

9. DS Case was DC Suett’s line manager with overall responsibility for the supervision of his Team’s enquiries and crime reports. The investigation by the IPCC found this officer must also shoulder a degree of the blame for the poor investigation.

10. The Metropolitan Police on considering the IPCC’s report agreed the following disposal: 4 officers received a written warning for their failings; 3 officers management advice and the two remaining officers, DS Case and DC Suett faced a misconduct hearing with full powers.

11. On 4 October 2007 the officers attended a misconduct hearing before Commander Sawyer, Chief Superintendent Smethen from Derbyshire Constabulary and Roger Lucking the lay member whose attendance was required under Reg 19 The Police (Conduct) Regulations 2004. Representatives of Mr Woodhams family were present at the hearing and also, following agreement of DS Case and DC Suett, present when the sanction was delivered.

12. Both officers admitted a breach of the Code of Conduct in relation to Performance of Duties. The tribunal considered that in respect of both officers the failure was a gross neglect of duty and required them to resign with immediate effect.

Assistant Commissioners Review

13. Both officers requested a chief officers review under Reg 40 The Police (Conduct) Regulations 2004 (in the Metropolitan Police Service an Assistant Commissioner) against the sanction.

14. On 25 March 2008 Assistant Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur undertook their review. The IPCC were represented and family members of Peter Woodhams’ were present and both made submissions to Mr Ghaffur.

15. In respect of DC Suett Mr Ghaffur concluded that he should remain accountable for his actions but the original sanction imposed on him was too severe in relation to the failings. His failings in this case were about this investigation, not in regard to his ability to be a police officer. He did not consider that his re-instatement would create a loss of public confidence in the police service. As a consequence, he varied the sanction from a requirement to resign to a fine of 13 days pay.

16. In respect of DS Case Mr Ghaffur similarly concluded that while he should remain accountable for his actions, the original sanction imposed on him was too severe. His failings in this case were about supervision, not in regard to his ability to be a detective. He did not consider that his re-instatement would create a loss of public confidence in the police service. He varied the sanction from a requirement to resign to a reduction in rank to Detective Constable.

17. AC Ghaffur was advised by independent counsel both prior to and during his review. The MPS believes that the process and decisions made by AC Ghaffur are legally sound. It is my personal belief that any judicial challenge to AC Ghaffur’s decision would be unlikely to succeed. Furthermore his determination is in accordance with the Taylor principles that are to be introduced within the new Police regulations in November this year.

18. Following the Taylor recommendations and the passing of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill of 2008, officers who have a finding of misconduct or gross misconduct following a misconduct hearing will, as of 1st November 2008, only have a right to appeal to a police appeals tribunal (PAT).

Post Appeal

19. The MPS regrets its failings in the initial investigation into the stabbing of Peter Woodhams. The Commissioner has offered his personal condolences to Mr Peter Woodhams senior and the rest of Peter’s family and friends.

20 Members of the family were afforded an unprecedented level of access throughout the whole disciplinary process. They were given full access to the hearing, the officers gave their consent for the family members to be present during the sanction process and, this was the first time that family members have been permitted to be present during an AC’s review. The family have been provided with a record of all the decision making documentation in this case and offered the opportunity to meet with AC Ghaffur.

21 Whilst the Woodhams family have yet to take up the opportunity to meet with AC Ghaffur so he can personally explain the reasons for his decisions, the offer remains open.

C. Race and equality impact

All crime reports are monitored for equality and disproportionality issues by local crime management units. The specifics within this case have been reviewed by the subsequent misconduct reviews and by operational Emerald as part of the lessons learned process. DPS monitor disproportionality on a regular basis and any action identified, is immediately referred to or implemented by the business group concerned.

D. Financial implications

There are no financial implications directly arising from this report

E. Background papers

Review of IPCC’s findings and actions taken

F. Contact details

Report authors: T/Detective Chief Inspector Tim Waterhouse, MPS

For more information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback